gameofthronesfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Sexposition
Deletion nomination I think there are numerous problems with this: *It is written initially from the perspective that the parody is actually real, this is presumably intended to duplicate the "humor" from the original sketch. I didn't find it humorous. I'm not sure it would be a good idea to keep it as is even if it was funny on its own terms. *It is potentially confusing to readers who do not get past the lead. *It is stretching the limits of our remit; we have not even begun to collate information about critical response to the show let alone writing articles about single characters from parodies. *We don't have an article about "sexposition," or even critical response to the show so it is probably too soon for us to be misconstruing interview comments form episodic directors to support tongue in cheek conspiracy theories. --Opark 77 09:53, June 9, 2012 (UTC) *'Agree'. --Gonzalo84 14:53, June 9, 2012 (UTC) : Or we need an "out of universe" template for the top. That says it pertains to GoT but outside of the actual show. Like if there were ever comic books, RPG games, etc. If not, then I say we delete it. -- 15:00, June 9, 2012 (UTC) *'Disagree' -- Wikipedia itself has a page on "Sexposition". Originally I started writing a page titled "Sexposition", then thought it would be more clever to write one that starts out by acting as if "Adam Friedberg" is real. I "assume good faith" that readers will bother to keep reading a full article and we're not just fashing billboard advertisements at them. "We don't have an article on sexposition" -- this is the article on "Sexposition".--The Dragon Demands 19:22, June 9, 2012 (UTC) **I think it is an incredibly bad idea to couch an article about a concept that didn't exist before this show in satire. A proportion of our audience don't have English as a first language so introducing a new word to them requires directness. A proportion of our audience will not understand the satirical bent of the article. We should keep it simple and have our article about Sexposition be titled "Sexposition" and begin with a concise definition of the term. What you find clever as a writer a proportion of your readers may find confusing, we are not supposed to be aiming to write cleverly here. Writing clearly is far more important for an encyclopedic project and must take precedence.--Opark 77 19:38, June 9, 2012 (UTC) *** COMMENT the article at the very least should state being a parody. As for out-of-universe tags, the entire site is written from an out-of-universe point of view. Character bios are divided by seasons, categorized as "characters" (fictional entities) and not "individuals" and written in literary present. Thus such distintions would be moot.--Gonzalo84 19:42, June 9, 2012 (UTC) *** Agreed. A 'sexposition' article is a good idea as the term has gained a lot of traction in the popular media (it has enough support to even maintain a page on it on Wikipedia, which is far stricter than we are about such things). However, it should also be listed under an 'out-of-universe' tag of some kind.--Werthead 10:53, June 10, 2012 (UTC)